Feds' suit raises stakes for Arizona's immigration law

A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday will be the most significant test yet for Arizona's new immigration law, but its effects are likely to go beyond simply determining the law's constitutionality.

The high-profile battle over illegal immigration could sway voters, helping determine whether Democrats retain or lose their majority in Congress. It could be a boon for Arizona Republicans who have supported the law. Some vulnerable Democrats urged the Obama administration not to file the suit.

The outcome of the case also could fuel or shut down efforts now under way to replicate the law in more than a dozen other states.

The lawsuit brought more national attention to the Grand Canyon State, which has weathered protests and boycotts since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law on April 23. Supporters say that they will successfully defend the suit and that it will hold up like other immigration-related laws that have faced court challenges the past few years.

The new suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix against Arizona and Brewer. It claims the immigration law "will conflict and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration-enforcement priorities and objectives" and divert resources from the "dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority."

The federal suit seeks a court injunction to keep the law from taking effect July 29. It wants to prevent Arizona from enforcing the law and asks the court to find certain sections of the legislation null and void. Senior Justice Department officials said they expect a federal judge to take up the motion for an injunction as early as next week.

The legislation makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It states that an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person's legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.

Legal challenges

The latest lawsuit is the sixth lawsuit filed in federal court challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1070. It will be treated no differently than the previous five in terms of process, court filings and hearings.

The plaintiffs in the five other lawsuits include law-enforcement officers, municipalities, illegal immigrants, clergy, civil-rights groups and non-profit organizations. Those lawsuits have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton. The Department of Justice wants its case moved under Bolton as well.

Bolton has scheduled a hearing July 15 in one of the previously filed challenges of the law. Another hearing is to be held July 22 in another case. Each hearing will include opposing arguments to either dismiss the particular lawsuit or to halt the law before it goes into effect.

Bolton could issue a ruling immediately after each hearing, or wait and issue a ruling after hearing arguments in several of the cases.

Stephen Montoya, an attorney who filed one of the five earlier lawsuits, said the Department of Justice filing won't change the arguments in his case. But he thinks it will help strengthen them.

"All five of the plaintiffs who filed lawsuits have been arguing that 1070 violates federal law and undermines federal policies regarding immigration," he said. "Now, the federal government is speaking for itself and saying the same thing . . . which is much more persuasive."

Previous suits

Although Tuesday's lawsuit has the distinction of the federal government being its plaintiff, many of the legal issues it raises have been previously tested by lawsuits challenging other Arizona laws targeting illegal immigrants.

In the past six years, Arizona voters and legislators have approved a series of measures designed to have an impact on illegal immigration. The measures require voters to produce identification at the polls, deny bail to felons suspected of being in the country illegally and hold employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers.

Citizens and civil-rights advocacy groups challenged those measures, asserting that the laws are inconsistent with federal immigration laws or are superseded by federal laws and the federal government's authority over immigration policy.

Judges have consistently found in favor of the state, although two of the cases are on appeal and a third is pending in federal court.

Andrew Thomas, a candidate for Arizona attorney general who helped write some state laws as Maricopa County attorney, said those cases gave him confidence in the constitutionality of SB 1070.

"The law is on our side," he said.

The case challenging Arizona's employer-sanctions law will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court later this year, based in part on the argument that federal immigration law trumps Arizona's right to create an immigration-enforcement measure masquerading as a business-enforcement law.

However, the Supreme Court's decision to hear the employer-sanctions case, and the fact that SB 1070 goes well beyond that in asserting the state's right to legislate on immigration issues, could make the state's previous victories irrelevant, said Terry Goddard, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate who as Arizona attorney general has defended the state in previous immigration lawsuits.

"The area of immigration and securing the borders is a . . . different area," Goddard said. "You can't, by analogy, say, 'Well, we can do it for employers, therefore you can do it for the border.' "

The employer-sanctions law also takes advantage of the state's right to license businesses, which is a clear right, Montoya said.

Federal law says states cannot penalize someone for hiring an illegal immigrant except in reference to business licensing, which is what the state law does.

"This wasn't constructed to fill in an exception to a federal law like the employer-sanctions law was," he said. "And this was not a common-sense kind of law like one saying if you want to vote you should have to show your ID."

Political fallout

The response to Tuesday's filing has been politically explosive, and local experts say that's for good reason.

Polls indicate a majority of Arizona voters support SB 1070.

"This puts a lot of Democrats in a very awkward position," said Michael O'Neil, president of Tempe-based public-opinion research firm O'Neil Associates. "Opposition to SB 1070 is a short-term losing proposition."

O'Neil said the new lawsuit ensures immigration will remain on the local and national political agenda for the foreseeable future.

"In the short term, that's a winner for the Republicans," he said. "Although in the long term, the Republican Party is alienating themselves from the Hispanic community, and they'll come to regret that."

Rodolfo Espino, an assistant professor of political science at Arizona State University, said Democratic candidates such as Kirkpatrick, Giffords and Mitchell are being allowed to distance themselves from the Democratic Party line to get re-elected in 2010.

"There's some parallel to how conservative Democrats from the South were given some leeway by the national Democratic Party during the civil-rights era to do what they needed to do to maintain a numerical majority," Espino said.

But more politically secure politicians didn't hesitate to show their resolve.

"It is simply Washington putting their policy on the backs of this lawsuit, trying to prevent the enforcement of our laws and continue their non-enforcement policy," Pearce said.

Police response

Regardless of what, if any, changes the federal suit brings to SB 1070, police agencies said Tuesday that they are proceeding as if the law takes effect on July 29.

Few law-enforcement officials were surprised the lawsuit was filed. It has been rumored and discussed in police circles for weeks. But until an injunction is issued to stop the law from taking effect, the agencies have no choice but to spend the next three weeks preparing officers to enforce it.

"This is another court challenge to 1070, and in the past several weeks, we have continued to approach 1070 training with the purpose of getting it done and in place when and if the law takes effect," said Bart Graves, an Arizona Department of Public Safety spokesman.

Some law-enforcement officials declined to speak directly about the issue, but Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio joined a coalition of state, local and federal authorities discussing both sides of the issue.

Arpaio called a news conference to denounce the federal government's decision. He also boasted that the Justice Department has yet to produce any results from a 15-month investigation into civil-rights violations in the Sheriff's Office.

But 10 other law-enforcement officials filed declarations in court in support of the Justice Department's lawsuit. Among them were Phoenix Public Safety Manager Jack Harris, Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villaseņor, Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada and a collection of current and former federal officials.

All had the same theme: SB 1070 diverts resources from police agencies and puts local police in the difficult position of enforcing complex federal immigration law.